9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 988X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctions 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for discharging the subsisting liability and in this case, rightly the respondent has invoked such presumption. The presumption will live, exist and survive and shall end only when the contrary is proved by the petitioner, i.e., the cheque was not issued for consideration and in discharge of any debt or liability. Further more, there is no iota of evidence or document on the side of the petitioner by way of reply to prove that there is no legally enforceable debt or liability due to the complainant. Hence, the petitioner has not rebutted the presumption as contemplated under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This Court is of the opinion that cogent and convincing reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 200 of the Cr.P.C, for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner. 3. The case of the petitioner herein (accused) is that the petitioner and respondent are working in the same place and known to each other. In the year 2011, the petitioner has purchased a lorry from the respondent. But the name transfer of the said vehicle was made only in the month of December 2012. At the time of purchase, there was a loan pending with Sri Ram Finance. The monthly instalment has to be paid by the petitioner after the purchase. For security to the prompt payment of the monthly instalment, the petitioner has issued two cheques drawn at Lakshmi Vilas Bank to the respondent. Thereafter the lorry was met with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, convicted and sentenced the petitioner and hence no interference is required in the same. 8. This Court has considered the said submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials available on record. 9. Firstly, it has to be pointed out that as an interim relief, this Court has granted the relief of suspension of sentence to the petitioner on 30.09.2019 with certain conditions, which have not been complied with by the petitioner thus far. 10. Secondly, a defence was taken by the petitioner to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, through Ex.D-1 that during December 2012, the petitioner has effected the name transfer of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... holds good. The Supreme Court in the case of Sadanandan Bhadran v. Madhavan Sunil Kumar, 1998 Cri.L.J. 4066 (SC) has held that Section 138 does not put any embargo upon the payee to successively present a dishonoured cheque during the period of its validity. Cause of action arises only when the notice is served on each presentation of the cheque and on its dishonour only, a fresh right arises and not a fresh cause of action. Once the notice was given under clause (b) of Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, the cause of action arises and thereafter the payee forfeits his right to further present the cheque. In case of failure of the drawer to pay the money within the stipulated time, he would be liable for the offence and the cause of ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch a complaint is filed and the complainant is able to establish all the ingredients of the offence and satisfies all other conditions required to be complied with for filing a complaint, it cannot be held on the basis of any express provision in the Act that the complaint is not legally maintainable. (see: S.K.D.Lakshmanan Fireworks Industries v. Sivarama Krishnan (K V) 1995 Cri.L.J. 1384 (Ker) (FB)). 13. In the case on hand, it is admitted by the petitioner that Cheques were issued by him. It is quite natural that the person, who issued or was responsible to issue the cheques, has to rebut the presumption placing necessary evidence, because when cheques are issued towards payment of certain amount, it is presumed that there was exist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 16. In view of the above reasonings, this Court is of the opinion that cogent and convincing reasons have been recorded by the Courts below for convicting and sentencing the petitioner / accused and hence they are confirmed as such. This Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merits and hence the same is dismissed. The learned Judicial Magistrate is directed to secure the accused and to proceed in accordance with law. If any amount has been deposited by the accused either in the appellate court or in the Trial Court in connection with this case, the same shall be disbursed with accrued interest to the complainant. It is always open to the parties to file an application before the Trial Court unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
